New Scientist on the yoga mat: We make everything real

The idea that we create reality seems absurd. But an audacious new take on quantum theory suggests the fundamental laws of nature emerge from our own experiences

That woo-woo has been around forever, or at least since the last remnants of the Stone Age. It was one of the things people had to fight, to get science off the ground.

Now some are contemplating a mind-boggling alternative: that a coherent description of reality, with all its quantum quirks, can arise from nothing more than random subjective experiences. It looks like the “perspective of a madman”, says the author of this bold new theory, because it compels us to abandon any notion of fundamental physical laws. But if it stands up, it would not only resolve some deep puzzles about quantum mechanics, it would turn our deepest preconceptions about reality itself inside out. (paywall)More.

Many naturalists must be looking for that exit just now. After all, nature, as defined today, cannot be all there is. Science demonstrates that.

Quantum mechanics doesn’t tell us that we make everything real unless that is the only way we can see it.

So why does scientism always seem to end up in mysticism’s illegal booze can?

Note: We extend a sincere apology to the manufacturers of yoga mats, most of whose occupants have more sense than what we describe above.

Not sure exactly why the negative take on this. I hardly think naturalists would cozy up to the idea that it is consciousness that generates our reality, whereas it is a natural fit for theists like myself who believe that it is indeed the mind of God that is creating all that we experience. Isn’t the trend in ID towards information as the basis for both matter and energy? Information as that which accounts for the precise design of the universe and life? What else but consciousness would be producing and utilizing that information?

William J Murray, quantum mechanics does not mean that we create the reality we see, although a naturalist may be driven to believe that as opposed to confronting the difference between that reality and his beliefs.

How so, News? Is it not the case than when we cease to observe something, it ceases to exist (other, presumably, than in the eyes of a third party)?

What about the collapsing of a wave function by observation? Woudn’t that count?

And altering the path of a particle issuing from a distant galaxy so that it goes one side of a planet or the other, after it’s already passed it ? Something weird like that. Or have I got it well and truly garbled?

The problem with this idea that it doesn’t actually follow from quantum mechanics or observations. Nothing about the wave function equation indicates this is the case. IOW, you’d need to *add* something to QM to reach this conclusion, which implies we (observers) are not subject to it as well.

So, what specific addition to are you suggesting should be added to the theory to reach this conclusion.

We must remember that quantum mechanics is a cesspool of pseudoscience. One that sticks like a sore thumb is the one where a quantum property can have two opposite states at the same time but, wait for it, it happens only when nobody is looking. It’s a howler.

Then, as a way to hide the pseudoscience, they gave it a nice little scientific-sounding name: quantum superposition and voila! Karl Popper is doing full 360-degree rotations in his grave at the speed of light as I write.

Many naturalists must be looking for that exit just now. After all, nature, as defined today, cannot be all there is. Science demonstrates that.

And…

But if it stands up, it would not only resolve some deep puzzles about quantum mechanics, it would turn our deepest preconceptions about reality itself inside out.

I always find these sorts of statement confusing, as it suggests there is no existing way to resolve the “deep puzzles about quantum mechanics” – such as entanglement, supposed spooky action at a distance, etc. – which would overturn some of our deepest preconceptions about reality.

So, the idea that I should be “looking for an exit” is based on false pretenses.

Then, as a way to hide the pseudoscience, they gave it a nice little scientific-sounding name: quantum superposition and voila! Karl Popper is doing full 360-degree rotations in his grave at the speed of light as I write.

Popper was a strong opponent of instrumentalism, which would include the shut up and calculate view of QM. In fact he proposed a way to test between different interpretations of quantum mechanics. So, why I agree that he would reject the “it’s not there unless I’m looking at it” view, Popper wouldn’t reject a good, deeper explanation for quantum mechanics, in principle.

The whole field of quantum computation was founded, for the purpose of just such a test, by a physicist who is a Popperian.

According to Deutsch, the insight for that paper came from a conversation in the early eighties with the physicist Charles Bennett, of I.B.M., about computational-complexity theory, at the time a sexy new field that investigated the difficulty of a computational task. Deutsch questioned whether computational complexity was a fundamental or a relative property. Mass, for instance, is a fundamental property, because it remains the same in any setting; weight is a relative property, because an object’s weight depends on the strength of gravity acting on it. Identical baseballs on Earth and on the moon have equivalent masses, but different weights. If computational complexity was like mass—if it was a fundamental property—then complexity was quite profound; if not, then not.

“I was just sounding off,” Deutsch said. “I said they make too much of this”—meaning complexity theory—“because there’s no standard computer with respect to which you should be calculating the complexity of the task.” Just as an object’s weight depends on the force of gravity in which it’s measured, the degree of computational complexity depended on the computer on which it was measured. One could find out how complex a task was to perform on a particular computer, but that didn’t say how complex a task was fundamentally, in reference to the universe. Unless there really was such a thing as a universal computer, there was no way a description of complexity could be fundamental. Complexity theorists, Deutsch reasoned, were wasting their time.

Deutsch continued, “Then Charlie said, quietly, ‘Well, the thing is, there is a fundamental computer. The fundamental computer is physics itself.’ ” That impressed Deutsch. Computational complexity was a fundamental property; its value referenced how complicated a computation was on that most universal computer, that of the physics of the world. “I realized that Charlie was right about that,” Deutsch said. “Then I thought, But these guys are using the wrong physics. They realized that complexity theory was a statement about physics, but they didn’t realize that it mattered whether you used the true laws of physics, or some approximation, i.e., classical physics.” Deutsch began rewriting Turing’s universal-computer work using quantum physics. “Some of the differences are very large,” he said. Thus, at least in Deutsch’s mind, the quantum universal computer was born.

[…]

I told Deutsch that I’d heard that even Everett thought his theory could never be tested.

“That was a catastrophic mistake,” Deutsch said. “Every innovator starts out with the world view of the subject as it was before his innovation. So he can’t be blamed for regarding his theory as an interpretation. But”—and here he paused for a moment—“I proposed a test of the Everett theory.”

Deutsch posited an artificial-intelligence program run on a computer which could be used in a quantum-mechanics experiment as an “observer”; the A.I. program, rather than a scientist, would be doing the problematic “looking,” and, by means of a clever idea that Deutsch came up with, a physicist looking at the A.I. observer would see one result if Everett’s theory was right, and another if the theory was wrong.

It was a thought experiment, though. No A.I. program existed that was anywhere near sophisticated enough to act as the observer. Deutsch argued that theoretically there could be such a program, though it could only be run on radically more advanced hardware—hardware that could model any other hardware, including that of the human brain. The computer on which the A.I. program would run “had to have the property of being universal . . . so I had to postulate this quantum-coherent universal computer, and that was really my first proposal for a quantum computer. Though I didn’t think of it as that. And I didn’t call it a quantum computer. But that’s what it was.” Deutsch had, it seems, come up with the idea for a quantum computer twice: once in devising a way to test the validity of the Many Worlds Interpretation, and a second time, emerging from the complexity-theory conversation, with evidenced argument supporting Many Worlds as a consequence.

Deutsch is mainly interested in the building of a quantum computer for its implications for fundamental physics, including the Many Worlds Interpretation, which would be a victory for the argument that science can explain the world and that, consequently, reality is knowable. (“House cures people,” Deutsch said to me when discussing Hugh Laurie, “because he’s interested in solving problems, not because he’s interested in people.”) Shor’s algorithm excites Deutsch, but here is how his excitement comes through in his book “The Fabric of Reality”:

To those who still cling to a single-universe world-view, I issue this challenge: explain how Shor’s algorithm works. I do not merely mean predict that it will work, which is merely a matter of solving a few uncontroversial equations. I mean provide an explanation. When Shor’s algorithm has factorized a number, using 10^500 or so times the computational resources than can be seen to be present, where was the number factorized? There are only about 10^80 atoms in the entire visible universe, an utterly minuscule number compared with 10^500. So if the visible universe were the extent of physical reality, physical reality would not even remotely contain the resources required to factorize such a large number. Who did factorize it, then? How, and where, was the computation performed?

Deutsch believes that quantum computing and Many Worlds are inextricably bound. He is nearly alone in this conviction, though many (especially around Oxford) concede that the construction of a sizable and stable quantum computer might be evidence in favor of the Everett interpretation. “Once there are actual quantum computers,” Deutsch said to me, “and a journalist can go to the actual labs and ask how does that actual machine work, the physicists in question will then either talk some obfuscatory nonsense, or will explain it in terms of parallel universes. Which will be newsworthy. Many Worlds will then become part of our culture. Really, it has nothing to do with making the computers. But psychologically it has everything to do with making them.”

That was 2011. Today, we have IBM preparing to sell quantum computation as a cloud service by giving developers access to a simulated 20 qbit quantum computer. Google has a foot in the water and Microsoft has publicly launched their own initiative.

After all, nature, as defined today, cannot be all there is. Science demonstrates that.

I would agree. There is more to the physical universe. Our visible, classical universe is actually one of many physical universes that are part of the multiverse of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (not to be confused with the cosmic multiverse), which interfere with each other. This explains all the “deep puzzles about quantum mechanics”. And it does so without positing some non-physical realm.

William J Murray, quantum mechanics does not mean that we create the reality we see, although a naturalist may be driven to believe that as opposed to confronting the difference between that reality and his beliefs.

Quantum mechanics in and of itself doesn’t “mean” anything; it is a collection of data that is interpreted into models. Some of that data, and some of those models, can be rationally interpreted to mean (among other things) that reality is not “matter” centric, or caused by happenstance qualities of matter and energy, but is rather information and consciousness-centric.

IMHO, naturalists want no part whatsoever of that idea because it means consciousness and information precede and inform the existence of matter and its behavior, something naturalism cannot tolerate.

“[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” – Werner Heisenberg

“In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it.” – Martin J. Rees

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” – Max Planck

“Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it.” – Pascual Jordan

“When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again. It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.” – Eugene Wigner

“The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment.” – Bernard d’Espagnat

It seems to me a natural extension of the theistic concept of a creation manifest by divine mind, that human beings with consciousness given them by god and with free will have some capacity to be an active part of that creation process.

IMO, quantum mechanics and the idea of consciousness generating reality is a naturalists worst nightmare, and completely friendly to ID and theism.

Arguments from authority are not particularly powerful. I have seen no valid argument from QM according to which particles do not exist unless they are observed by a conscious entity. Who is observing the particles in the sun’s interior? Besides, direct observation is impossible since all observations depend on EM radiation from the “observed” particle to the observer. The observed particle can only be assumed to exist. At which point, we come face to face with Descartes’s “cogito ergo sum”, another untamed beast of the reality jungle.

You seem to think I’m trying to argue that a certain interpretation of QM is true. I am not. What I am doing is questioning why News would put such a dismissive spin on it as if it was a naturalism-friendly perspective, which it clearly is not.

If one believes in free will, then one necessarily must believe that at some point, somehow, consciousness can directly affect reality at least when it comes to our own thoughts and behaviors. Somehow consciousness must be at least able to override/manipulate the ongoing physico-chemical processes of our brain and body, or else we would simply be biological automatons doing and thinking whatever happenstance chemical interactions dictate.

Also, if we believe that God can intervene in the physical universe, this QM interpretation provides model for that interaction and how God can “create reality” via omnipresent omniscience (btw, that would be “who” is observing what is going on in the heart of a star).

Furthermore, I think that humans having some capacity to directly affect physical reality via the nature/state of their consciousness is something that works remarkably well in scientifically grounding all sorts of religious phenomena associated with individuals that have been reported on down through the ages.

So, again, to be clear, I’m not sure why the negative, naturalist spin on this subject. There’s a lot of negativity in News’ post about a lot of things (beginning with Yoga) that I don’t understand. Is it the intention here to alienate EVERYONE who doesn’t toe a very particular ideological narrative, even if they are both theists and IDists?

Funny you should mention David Deutsch because Popper would dismiss him as a complete charlatan and a kook. And I would agree.

Well, go on. Why did you stop there? This is were you present an argument as to why Popper would dismiss Deutsch as a charlatan and a kook.

From the same article…

It’s tempting to view Deutsch as a visionary in his devotion to the Many Worlds Interpretation, for the simple reason that he has been a visionary before. “Quantum computers should have been invented in the nineteen-thirties,” he observed near the end of our conversation. “The stuff that I did in the late nineteen-seventies and early nineteen-eighties didn’t use any innovation that hadn’t been known in the thirties.” That is straightforwardly true. Deutsch went on, “The question is why.”

DiVincenzo offered a possible explanation. “Your average physicists will say, ‘I’m not strong in philosophy and I don’t really know what to think, and it doesn’t matter.’ ” He does not subscribe to Many Worlds, but is reluctant to dismiss Deutsch’s belief in it, partly because it has led Deutsch to come up with his important theories, but also because “quantum mechanics does have a unique place in physics, in that it does have a subcurrent of philosophy you don’t find even in Newton’s laws or gravity. But the majority of physicists say it’s a quagmire they don’t want to get into—they’d rather work out the implications of ideas; they’d rather calculate something.”

That the majority of physicists say “I’m not strong in philosophy and I don’t really know what to think, and it doesn’t matter.” and “they’d rather calculate something”, is the very attitude that Popper was against. It’s instrumentalism.

So, again, to be clear, I’m not sure why the negative, naturalist spin on this subject. There’s a lot of negativity in News’ post about a lot of things (beginning with Yoga) that I don’t understand. Is it the intention here to alienate EVERYONE who doesn’t toe a very particular ideological narrative, even if they are both theists and IDists?

I do not dispute the fact that our consciousness/spirit interacts with a number of physical processes in the brain. I experience it. But I suspect that O’Leary (News) is motivated by a sense of rebellion against the torrent of BS that continually pours out of the scientific community on a daily basis. I understand her frustration. I, too, am a rebel.

This being said, I see nothing in QM that points to consciousness or the supernatural, regardless of the many pronouncements of its practitioners. What I see mostly is superstition and wishful thinking.

You seem to think I’m trying to argue that a certain interpretation of QM is true. I am not.

Nothing in the theory of quantum mechanics indicates that observers are somehow immune to the wave function or play any kind of special role. For that to be the case, you have to add something to the theory, which you haven’t done in any specific way.

Once we accept that there are other people; we’re not just an isolated mind in a jar; the ability to reference external physical objects in time and space with other people means we are either part of the same delusion or there really is an external world around us.

I’ll go for the simple explanation; the world is really there just as we observe it.

Who was observing the quantum world before we allegedly arose from the “primal soup”? We cannot observe (and therefore create reality) if we are not extant.

There is a difference (albeit slight) between the mind of God and the mind of man. Give the near mystical properties of the “quantum world” perhaps what we are observing is not the “mind of man” creating but how the “mind of God” did create.

The ability to communicate concepts about external reality between minds through language really, really, shoots holes in all these (hypotheses?) that what we perceive does not really correspond to what is external to our beings – whether the (hypothesis?) is floated by 17th C. philosophers or modern quantum physicists.

the ability to reference external physical objects in time and space with other people means we are either part of the same delusion or there really is an external world around us.

This is what is known as a false dichotomy. There can both “really” be an external world AND it can be affected to one degree or another by our conscious observation of it.

I’ll go for the simple explanation; the world is really there just as we observe it.

Yeah, the five human senses are the final say on what the universe is and is not. Matter is solid! The idea it is actually made up of energetic wave potentials is hogwash! /sarcasm

It is bizarre to me that the idea that human consciousness directly impacts the physical world meets such resistance here. At the skeptical zone I understand – they are terrified of being anything other than biological automatons in a mechanistic universe.

Is there some theistic or ID principle that this interpretation of quantum physics undermines or threatens? I honestly don’t get it.

There is a difference (albeit slight) between the mind of God and the mind of man. Give the near mystical properties of the “quantum world” perhaps what we are observing is not the “mind of man” creating but how the “mind of God” did create.

Where exactly to you propose the mind of man came from, if not from the mind of God?

The ability to communicate concepts about external reality between minds through language really, really, shoots holes in all these (hypotheses?) that what we perceive does not really correspond to what is external to our beings – whether the (hypothesis?) is floated by 17th C. philosophers or modern quantum physicists.

This is reasoning extended from the same false dichotomy aarceng used. Just because an external world exists and can be affected by human consciousness doesn’t mean it cannot be mutually observed by and conceptualized interpersonally by those who are affecting it. You’ve provided no reasoning for that conclusion.

Again, nothing in Schrödinger’s equation says anything about a special role for observers. That would be an ad-hoc addition.

From the the page on the many words theory of quantum mechanics on Wikipedia.

In Dublin in 1952 Erwin gave a lecture in which at one point he jocularly warned his audience that what he was about to say might “seem lunatic”. He went on to assert that when the equation that won him a Nobel prize seems to be describing several different histories, they are “not alternatives but all really happen simultaneously”. This is the earliest known reference to the many-worlds.[15][16]

IOW, the many worlds theory is what we get when we take Schrödinger‘s equation seriously. That’s what Schrödinger got from his own equation.

If, when you say “ROFL!!!”, you’re referring to the Copenhagen interpretation …

No, CR. I’m not. I’m laughing at your utter inability to understand what I’m actually talking about, even after you quote me where I say I am NOT making the argument you are apparently “responding” to (and which FourFaces seemd to mistakenly infer as well), from a post where I explicitly explain the point I am actually making.

For the second time, I’m not arguing whether any interpretation whatsoever (even if it was my own idiosyncratic view) of QM theory is true.

No, CR. I’m not. I’m laughing at your utter inability to understand what I’m actually talking about, even after you quote me where I say I am NOT making the argument you are apparently “responding” to (and which FourFaces seemd to mistakenly infer as well), from a post where I explicitly explain the point I am actually making.

Couldn’t at least two people confusing your position be an indication that your position wasn’t exactly the most clear, as opposed to merely being “funny”?

Furthermore, as I pointed out, the very predictions QM successfully makes would also predict we too would be subject to the wave function. Otherwise, you must add something to the theory.

Yet, you seem to be open to alternative theories. So you seem to already be deviating from the predictions of the wave function in some way. How is that not an interpretation? What are you adding to it?

IOW, my entire point is that the many worlds theory is the most straight forward, least assumption making, realist conclusion. This is because that’s what we would get if we too are subject to the wave function.

So, it would seem that I understand your position, after all. And I materially disagree with it.

That is, unless you’re not a realist? At which point, you would be an instrumentalist at least in respect to quantum mechanics.

Couldn’t at least two people confusing your position be an indication that your position wasn’t exactly the most clear, as opposed to merely being “funny”?

Sure, which is why I explicitly explain my position @15, which you then quoted from, a quote where I explicitly said I was not making the very argument you continue to argue against.

That’s what’s funny, CR. You quote me saying i’m not making X argument, then you proceed to argue against X argument as if I was making that argument. And you are still doing the same exact thing as if you are unable to understand that I am not arguing about whether or not any form or aspect of QM theory is true or not.

So, it would seem that I understand your position, after all. And I materially disagree with it.

No, you do not. Not even close. Here is the first paragraph in 15 where I explicitly state what my point is:

You seem to think I’m trying to argue that a certain interpretation of QM is true. I am not. What I am doing is questioning why News would put such a dismissive spin on it as if it was a naturalism-friendly perspective, which it clearly is not.

My point has absolutely nothing to do with which interpretation of QM theory is true. NOTHING. I am not making a case that ANY interpretation is true or better evidenced. I’m trying to understand why News put such a dismissive, pro-naturalism spin on an interpretation that, in my view, can easily be seen (and is seen by many) as pro-ID and pro-theism, and which IMO no naturalist would endorse.

That’s what’s funny, CR. You quote me saying i’m not making X argument, then you proceed to argue against X argument as if I was making that argument. And you are still doing the same exact thing as if you are unable to understand that I am not arguing about whether or not any form or aspect of QM theory is true or not.

I quoted you saying your not arguing for an interpretation of quantum mechanics because you seem to be implicitly doing just that.

You wrote….

Quantum mechanics in and of itself doesn’t “mean” anything; it is a collection of data that is interpreted into models. Some of that data, and some of those models, can be rationally interpreted to mean (among other things) that reality is not “matter” centric, or caused by happenstance qualities of matter and energy, but is rather information and consciousness-centric.

But, it does mean something. Even if you assume that quantum mechanics is only about predictions, those predictions would be based on Schrödinger’s equation, not Schrödinger’s equation unless an observer then (fill in the blank with some ad-hoc assumption.) So, all of the predictions of quantum mechanics would be equally applicable to observers.

Assuming observers are somehow immune to those predictions is implicitly arguing for an interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Furthermore, if you think quantum mechanics only makes predictions, then you are an instrumentalist, not a realist, at least in respect to the most successful and fundamental theory we currently have. Yet, I’m guessing you consider yourself a realist about most everything else.

IMHO, naturalists want no part whatsoever of that idea because it means consciousness and information precede and inform the existence of matter and its behavior, something naturalism cannot tolerate.

What I will not tolerate is an ad-hoc, easily varied addition to theories, including quantum mechanics, the growth of knowledge in the biosphere, etc. If someone can develop a good expiation for excluding observers, then I would have no problem with it. This has nothing to do with information or conciseness “informing matter” whatever that means. IOW, I would apply the same criticism as I would to any other theory, including the current crop of intelligent design.

It seems to me a natural extension of the theistic concept of a creation manifest by divine mind, that human beings with consciousness given them by god and with free will have some capacity to be an active part of that creation process.

If people are not well adapted to serve a purpose, such as designing things, in that should some aspect of them are free from natural laws is the “origin” of design, then what other “laws” remain that prevent them from simply creating whatever reality they want? Why share some capacity, as opposed to the same capacity? “That’s just what God wanted” is bad explanation.

IOW if God is not well adapted to serve a purpose, then what prevents all non-material things from being equal capable of serving that purpose just as well? Why would God be more effective than a person, who supposedly is also “free” from physical laws?

An interpretation of quantum mechanics where “conciseness precedes reality” doesn’t seem to support theism unless you add an ad-hoc limitation on people but not God. This would be the same sort of ad-hoc addition that supposedly makes observers immune to the wave function. Both would be equally bad explanations.

My point has absolutely nothing to do with which interpretation of QM theory is true.

You seem to think that your comment couldn’t possibility have any purpose other than what you originally intended. Therefore any criticism of it must be based on what you explicitly presented. However, none of us can choose what our ideas imply. That is independent of our original intent.

You seem to think that your comment couldn’t possibility have any purpose other than what you originally intended. Therefore any criticism of it must be based on what you explicitly presented.

No, CR. You are free to write anything you want, and infer from my post whatever you want, and carry on an argument as if I’m interested in participating in whatever argument you are going on about. You are free to imagine that I care about which version of QM theory is true, or about your particular view, or about anyone’s particular view other than News.

I’m not interested in your view of QM theory. That’s why I’m not engaging in the argument you are offering. It is of no interest to me whatsoever.

What I do find interesting in addition to my actual point is your bizarre refusal to just admit you inferred incorrectly, and are now insistent that it is your right to interpret the statements of others however you wish (even against their direct and explicit correction), provide arguments based on that incorrect inference, and then act as if I should engage you in an argument that has nothing whatsoever to do with the point I was making.

Is it really that hard for you to just say, “My bad, I misunderstood what your point was.”??? Is your need to be correct so insatiable that you are willing deny explicit correction?

Whether or not you have an argument against my point that a “our-conscousness-creates-reality” perspective of QM theory is theism-friendly is totally irrelevant to the fact that quite a number of people consider it to be theism-friendly (go ask millions involved in “manifestation” and affirmation techniques who believe in god), including me.

My point is not that the “friendliness” can be logically or theoretically supported, because that is not the case I make. The case I make is that since many theists consider that perspective theism-friendly (whether warranted or not), it seems odd to cast it as anti-theistic and pro-naturalism – especially since so many naturalists consider consciousness a secondary illusion entirely generated by naturalistic interactions.

In any event, CR, you are not in any position to respond to my point; only News is, and apparently she is not interested in further interaction on the matter.

CR: Again, nothing in Schrödinger’s equation says anything about a special role for observers. That would be an ad-hoc addition.
…
[so], the many worlds theory is what we get when we take Schrödinger‘s equation seriously.

mike1962: Only if you deny that even the tiniest free will exists.

I’m not following you. Area you saying you don’t want to take Schrödinger‘s equation seriously, and therefore are an instrumentalist in the case of quantum mechanics? Or are you saying you’re making an ad-hoc addition to it because you think it doesn’t fit intuitions on free will?

In the many worlds theory of QM, not only are people free to make other possible choices, they actually make all other possible choices. And those choices have consequences in those universes. As such, some choices will be represented more often across the multiverse.

So, it’s not that free will wouldn’t exist in the MWT, it just doesn’t exist in the way you intuitively think it does. Why do you think your intuitions on free will would be correct?

Critical Rationalist:Area [sic] you saying you don’t want to take Schrödinger‘s equation seriously,

I’m saying that one can take Schrödinger‘s equation seriously and reject Many Worlds.

Or are you saying you’re making an ad-hoc addition to it because you think it doesn’t fit intuitions on free will?

I’m not making any addition to Schrödinger‘s equation. However, my metaphysical gnosis of my consciousness as primary and other inform which interpretation is more appropriate, and that is the Copenhagen interpretation.

Whether or not you have an argument against my point that a “our-conscousness-creates-reality” perspective of QM theory is theism-friendly is totally irrelevant to the fact that quite a number of people consider it to be theism-friendly (go ask millions involved in “manifestation” and affirmation techniques who believe in god), including me.

I was under the impression that you wanted that idea to be taken seriously. Am I mistaken?

Specifically, what I’m trying to do is take the idea that “QM theory is theism-friendly” seriously, as if it is true in reality and that all observations should conform to It, for the purpose of criticism. The results was the criticisms I presented.

– It represents ad ad-hoc addition to QM, so it would be QM + (something ad-hoc) is theism friendly, as opposed to QM per se. Nor does it state what that something is
– If conciseness precedes reality, then it’s unclear why people couldn’t change their reality or create universes, etc. as opposed to just God. So, that too would be QM + (something ad-hoc) which you haven’t presented

You don’t seem to have any actual response to this, yet you seem to find that criticism irrelevant to that idea. So, apparently, it is a belief, in that you consider criticism of it irrelevant.

IOW, it seems that you’ve concluded that “QM theory is theism-friendly” for no other reason than adding something to QM, namely theism, makes QM friendly to theism. Not much of a surprise here.

I’m saying that one can take Schrödinger‘s equation seriously and reject Many Worlds.

Again, Schrödinger‘s equation doesn’t have exceptions for observers. So, you’re either not taking it seriously, or your adding something to it.

I’m not making any addition to Schrödinger‘s equation. However, my metaphysical gnosis of my consciousness as primary and other inform which interpretation is more appropriate, and that is the Copenhagen interpretation.

From the early days of quantum mechanics, there has been a strain of thought that holds that the proper attitude to take towards quantum mechanics is an instrumentalist or pragmatic one. On such a view, quantum mechanics is a tool for coordinating our experience and for forming expectations about the outcomes of experiments. Variants of this view include what has been called the Copenhagen Interpretation (or Copenhagen Interpretations, as recent scholarship has emphasized differences between figures associated with this view); see the entry on Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. More recently, views of this sort have been advocated by physicists, including QBists, who hold that quantum states represent subjective or epistemic probabilities (see Fuchs et al. 2014). The philosopher Richard Healey defends a related view on which quantum states, though objective, do not represent physical reality (see Healey 2012; Healey forthcoming).

So, again, you seem to be either not taking Schrödinger‘s equation seriously, or you’re adding something to it. Most likely theism.

It would come as no surprise that adding theism to QM would make QM friendly to theism.

Where exactly to you propose the mind of man came from, if not from the mind of God?

Where exactly do you propose the mind of God came from?

If the mind of God can create the minds of men, then why can’t the minds of men create other minds, etc.? Nothing in Schrödinger‘s equation makes an exception for men but not God, either. So this doesn’t follow any more than exceptions made for observers, in general.

IOW, that God’s mind could, but the minds of men could not, is yet another ad-hoc addition to QM. It’s basically adding theism to QM and then calling QM theism friendly.

Critical Rationalist:Schrödinger‘s equation doesn’t have exceptions for observers. So, you’re either not taking it seriously, or your adding something to it.

That’s a bizarre statement given that: “The Schrödinger equation provides a way to calculate the wave function of a system and how it changes dynamically in time. However, the Schrödinger equation does not directly say what, exactly, the wave function is. Interpretations of quantum mechanics address questions such as what the relation is between the wave function, the underlying reality, and the results of experimental measurements.” (Wikipedia)

Of course there is “room for observers.” It’s related to the wavefunction. Do you think those (the majority) that accept the Copenhagen interpretation as the most likely are not taking Schrödinger‘s equation seriously?

As for why I accept the Copenhagen interpretation over Many Worlds was explained above. Many worlds is a consequence of the mere product of reasoning, and there is no evidence that the histories are “splitting.” Copenhagen interpretation is compatible with what I know beyond any doubt, what is the primary fact of my existence: my consciousness. (Theism is not necessary.) Why would anyone reject the primary fact of their own existence, consciousness with free will, over the mere product of reason? Philosophical zombies would, I suppose.

Mike: Of course there is “room for observers.” It’s related to the wavefunction.

Except, I didn’t say The Schrödinger equation doesn’t have “room for observers.”, whatever that means. What I said is that the Schrödinger equation does’t make exceptions for observers.

The quote was…

“The Schrödinger equation provides a way to calculate the wave function of a system and how it changes dynamically in time.

This is in contrast to…

The Schrödinger equation provides a way to calculate the wave function of systems, with the exception of observers, and how they changes dynamically in time

IOW, the term “system” in the actual quote doesn’t make any kind of qualification in respect to observers, so it would be as applicable to them as everything else. Nor is it clear that observers are not “systems”. That would be yet another assumption you would be adding to the wave function.

Again, either you’re not taking the Schrödinger equation seriously, or you’re adding something to it.

The Copenhagen interpretation is an instrumentalist interpretation. It doesn’t take Schrödinger’s equation seriously, as a represtation of reality. That’s what is meant by taking a “shut up and calculate” position on quantum mechanics. As such, it doesn’t assume there is an actual collapse, in reality.

That represents the former of the two options.

Nor does the Schrödinger equation assume there is a collapse, either, due to anything, let alone observes.

As such, he explains the existence of a world and is the basis for any possible world, including one in which there are creatures inescapably guided by moral principles, of which we often become aware through conscience.

Where God comes from infers causal origin for God, but if God is, such an origin is inconsistent with the nature of his being God. A necessary being is framework to any possible world existing. (For instance try to imagine a world in which distinct identity does not obtain; instant fail. This also shows that twoness is necessary as in A and not-A, thence the infinite domain of the naturals.)

The real question is, first: is the God of Ethical Theism a serious candidate necessary being? (Attempted denials fail very quickly, and this is why something like the flying spaghetti monster parody manifests ignorance. Likewise the atheistical talking point on how theists believe in reducing the number of gods to one, atheists just keep going to zero. But small-g gods simply are not the same category of being.)

Second, is such a being as the God envisioned by theism impossible as a square circle is impossible? (That is, inescapably contradictory core characteristics. And yes, assertion or implying that one knows enough to dismiss the reality of God entails a claim to know that God is impossible of being. To save an outdated rabbit-trail, the logical problem of evil fails and leaves standing the challenge of good that atheism cannot ground as part of such a view failing to solve the IS-OUGHT gap.)

Then, too, some try to challenge the idea that God speaks, often mocking in terms of childish invisible friends or thinking of fairy-like creatures or bronze age sky-gods. Again, category fails: God’s voice may be at as close a hand as a reasonably sound conscience.

Where, just to ground trustworthy reason, we have to be responsible thus morally governed by truth and soundness, prudence etc. That’s why for instance collapsing truth into opinion or assertion is so pernicious. A lesson that anyone who has been victimised by today’s all too common trend of piling on with slanders without recognising a duty of care to the other person, his [at least potentially innocent] reputation and his family can tell you all about.

Truth FYI is best understood as Ari long ago put it: truth says of what is that it is; and of what is not, that it is not.

Likewise, to lie is to speak with disregard to truth in hope that what one will profit from what one says or suggests being taken as true. Willful deceitful behaviour in short that rejects or neglects duty to truth and to neighbour.

But when lies become our norms and what we call knowledge, we set up a crooked yardstick as standard of straightness and accuracy. That creates a vicious spiral, as what is really straight, upright and accurate can never pass the test of conformity to crookedness.

I put it to you, sir — on long observation — that (with all due respect) you therefore need to go back to the foundational framework of your worldview and apply to it the plumbline test of what is naturally and especially self-evidently true. Here on (in context) may help you.

That’s an interesting conjecture, KF. How might we go about criticizing that idea to find errors it may contain?

Furthermore, if minds can create reality, yet minds are not well adapted for the purpose of creating reality, then why are some minds vastly more capable of that purpose than others? Seems like a rather ad-hoc assumption.

if minds are free from physical laws, then what prohibits some minds from creating other minds and other universes, but not others?

As such, he explains the existence of a world and is the basis for any possible world, including one in which there are creatures inescapably guided by moral principles, of which we often become aware through conscience.

Why would there be nothing instead of something, seems to be an equally valid question. I mean, if we’re truly humble and open to the fact that our intuitions are only actually useful in a very narrow range regarding things we have actual experience with, the question seems just as valid. What we need are ways to criticize our intuited guesses.

Furthermore, that there is an inexplicable mind that exists in an inexplicable realm that operates by some inexplicable means and methods, who does things for reasons that are beyond our comprehension, doesn’t explain much of anything.

This entire enterprise is a specific example of an epistemology in which knowledge comes from authoritative sources. Acceptance of this idea underlies this view, which apparently, you cannot imagine anything else. The idea that this is the only option is specifically part of that view. It’s circular.

The real question is, first: is the God of Ethical Theism a serious candidate necessary being?

That assumes there actually is any such position to fill. You’re putting the cart in front of the horse.

Likewise, to lie is to speak with disregard to truth in hope that what one will profit from what one says or suggests being taken as true. Willful deceitful behaviour in short that rejects or neglects duty to truth and to neighbour.

Of course, KF. the Bible says I know in my heart the truth. And therefore I must be lying.

To quote Popper, “The doctrine that the truth is manifest is the root of all tyranny”

I put it to you, sir — on long observation — that (with all due respect) you therefore need to go back to the foundational framework of your worldview and apply to it the plumbline test of what is naturally and especially self-evidently true. Here on (in context) may help you.

Again, my world view doesn’t have a foundation in the sense you’re implying. We’ve been over this before. What you call self-evident truths are ideas that we currently lack good criticism of.

Do you doubt this? Please provide examples of a self-evident truths that are not tautologies.

CR, not a conjecture, that you think it is, means you do not understand what ethical theists — and this is broader than the Judaeo Christian or Islamic traditions — mean when they speak of God. For instance, why is God seen as eternal? As the Supreme being? Similarly, why is God discussed as spirit/immaterial? Why is it said, “in him we live and move and have our being”? Why is he viewed as creator of the heavens and the earth, etc? Why is he seen as the good one, the truth himself, having love as essential character trait, utterly pure and upright etc? All of these turn on the characteristics necessary being, maximally great and inherently good, the root of reality. KF

PS: All actual worldviews (and related discussions, arguments or views) have foundational first plausibles, as infinite regress is impossible, we (being inherently finite and bounded in our rationality, not least by death) simply cannot continue the chain of explanation/warrant: A as B, B as C, C as . . . without end. The issue is what is your de facto if not declared and acknowledged stopping point, your faith-point, not whether you have one. And in that context how it stands up on factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power: neither simplistic nor ad hoc and question-begging. BTW, you will see that I am highlighting both coherence and finite distance as well as adequacy to the world of reality as experienced.

Critical Rationalist:Again, either you’re not taking the Schrödinger equation seriously, or you’re adding something to it.

Again, per Wikipedia: The Schrödinger equation provides a way to calculate the wave function of a system and how it changes dynamically in time. However, the Schrödinger equation does not directly say what, exactly, the wave function is. Interpretations of quantum mechanics address questions such as what the relation is between the wave function, the underlying reality, and the results of experimental measurements.

And again I’ll explain, the primary fact of my consciousness rules out the Many Worlds in favor of the Copenhagen interpretation. There can be no reason to reject the primary fact of my consciousness over the product of mere reason (the Many Worlds dodge.)

F/N: Let me also follow this up as it may help to clarify what you need to re-think:

Why would there be nothing instead of something, seems to be an equally valid question. I mean, if we’re truly humble and open to the fact that our intuitions are only actually useful in a very narrow range regarding things we have actual experience with, the question seems just as valid.

Were there ever utter non-being, such has no causal powers so nothing would forever obtain. Thus, if a world now is SOMETHING always was, something utterly independent of other agency, entities or arrangements. That is, some X is such that there are no on/off enabling factors Y that if absent or removed would block existence of X or cause X to cease existing. By contrast, remove heat, oxidiser, fuel or interfere with the combustion chain reaction and a fire cannot exist, begin or continue. A fire is a classic contingent being and I contrast it with a necessary one in a key characteristic, on/off enabling causal factors.

Such a being has further characteristics: it is bound up into the framework for a world to exist. For instance, no world is possible without distinct identity thus twoness (and with it the naturals). That is, distinct identity is inherently bound up in the framework for any world to exist and has neither beginning nor end. Eternality.

Next, this already explodes the false humility of oh, my views are challenged as categorically in error so I point out the finitude and error-proneness of human thought in order to blunt the force of the challenge. So, we need to instead recognise that there are necessary truths that even though we are limited we can grasp. That no world is possible without distinct identity (and thence the classic three first principles of right reason: LOI, LNC, LEM) is one such truth. That is, core logic is something we can grasp which is self evidently, necessarily true on pain of patent absurdity and the collapse of rationality itself.

Let me add as afterthought: core logic + naturals –> logic of structure and quantity, aka Mathematics. That is, we here see the centrality of Math in thought and its potential universality in key facets.

In this context, the point comes back: God is a serious candidate necessary being and as such is either impossible of being (as a square circle is) or else he is possible, would exist in the framework for at least one possible world thus all possible worlds and thus also this world.

So the — utterly unmet — real challenge of the atheist is to show that God is impossible of being.

Not to assert that s/he can imagine a world without God, but to show that such an imagined world does not in the end — when all material considerations are brought in such as accounting for conscious, minded, morally governed creatures (like us) — fail of being plausible, of being soundly rooted. After all, we can all at least verbalise or imagine in some shady way things that are impossible of being even before we get to the simple possibility of error.

More can be said, enough for the moment.

KF

PS: While I am at it, I simply stated a good definition of what lying is, as opposed to truthfulness, and also as opposed to error. And if you imagine that my discussion is about Biblical theology or ethics, that too shows the degree of conceptual deficit you need to make up. I have spoken to the logic of being and to necessary being in that context, including that ethical theism — not equal to the Judaeo-Christian tradition — pivots on a Supreme Being who is both necessary and maximally great. I am discussing worldview concepts and particularly those on world-roots. Where, BTW, morals come up because one of the key facts of our conscious existence is that we are under moral government. Indeed, a subtext of many of your points above is that I am in the wrong and ought to be in the right instead. Indeed, that is a foundational, usually implicit, premise of responsible rational argument and of the linked freedom that allows us to be thus reasonable. I should note, SOME truths are manifest, others even self evident; others abstruse, some in extreme degree so the strawman caricature that I am some sort of simplistic neo-fascist who would impose his views on the assertion that they are manifestly true is utterly unworthy and in fact is out of order on your part.

PPS: Let me add the point: show us. If you claim that we can construct computational entities that escape the GIGO principle of blind processing of inputs to outputs without freedom to actually reason and freely, responsibly choose, simply show us. I would suggest that we can construct complex entities of cybernetic character that could function in interesting ways but in the end such would be no better than the last level of functional organisation and programming or tuning etc, joined to quality of inputs. That is an inherent limit of refined, organised rock and linked signal processing by essentially blind mechanical means — as opposed to insightful, understanding leading to ground-consequent and similar inferences, rational judgement and morally freighted weighing of duty. But the very fact that you expect me to know I have a duty to responsible rationality — am under moral government — is a clue that you understand us to be beyond the mechanical order of blind chance and/or necessity. Indeed, were it shown that human thought and rationality were so reduced, for cause confidence in our rationality and responsibility would collapse. Indeed, just the dominance of ideologies that imply that is busily eating the heart out of rationality and responsibility in our civilisation. Yes, evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers are inherently self-refuting, amoral and inviting of suicidal nihilism. As we see all about.

CR: Why would there be nothing instead of something, seems to be an equally valid question.

(1) There is either a first cause or an infinite regress of causes.
(2) An infinite regress of causes cannot exist.
(3) There is a first cause which cannot be explained by something other than the first cause.

CR, not a conjecture, that you think it is, means you do not understand what ethical theists — and this is broader than the Judaeo Christian or Islamic traditions — mean when they speak of God.

Your belief that it is not a conjecture is itself an interesting conjecture. How would we go about criticizing that idea to find errors it contains?

Or are you saying neither of those things are subject to criticism? But that too would be a conjecture. How would we go about criticizing that idea to find errors it contains?

PS: All actual worldviews (and related discussions, arguments or views) have foundational first plausibles, as infinite regress is impossible, we (being inherently finite and bounded in our rationality, not least by death) simply cannot continue the chain of explanation/warrant: A as B, B as C, C as . . . without end. The issue is what is your de facto if not declared and acknowledged stopping point, your faith-point, not whether you have one.

That is an interesting conjecture. How might we go about testing that idea to find errors it might contain?

CR, that’s doubling down. If you are to simply be fair and accurate in understanding what ethical theists mean in speaking of God, you need to accept what they mean rather than imposing alien concepts drawn from your particular spin on Popper’s thoughts about science etc. — the reason why I intervened earlier in the first instance. If you insist on setting up and knocking over strawman caricatures and refusing to deal with the substantial points put up before you, you reveal volumes on how your critical rationalism fails to be a serious or responsible view. Next, the implication of falsificationism as a criterion of meaningfulness also needs to reckon with the now sixty year old collapse of the verification principle, which cannot meet its own criterion and is self referentially incoherent. Your further failure to understand and acknowledge the simple fact — as was laid out in brief using a light degree of abstract symbolising — that warrant (including inter alia “proofs”) or explanation comes in chains so that worldviews, frames of thought, fields of study and arguments alike face the issue of impossible infinite regress thus are forced to in practice have a finitely remote start-point speaks further volumes on the conceptual deficit you must make up. As to how chains of warrant may be tested for soundness, you clearly needed to heed the triple test on comparative difficulties criterion laid out: factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory balance. Where, distinct identity is self-evidently real (A vs not-A) and carries with it the corollaries LOI, LNC, LEM. Simply ponder world W with some distinct A so that W = {A | not-A}. The pretence of standing outside this while using the distinct identities of say letters speaks for itself. KF

WJM, looks like the morally bankrupt elites imagine that by playing their habitual distractive games they can weather the storm of the exposure of widespread sex abuse and human trafficking. Indeed, it is astonishing to see 20 years later, oh maybe those others were right about Bill Clinton 20 years ago, now that they want to cynically play the other side of the street to attack threatening targets. What are they going to say when those they have abused, scorned, slandered and trampled on with media power start coming for them with pine-pitch and feathers? (Maybe, literally?) KF

Excellent arguments. The verification principle, which cannot meet its own criterion and is self-referentially incoherent and, yes, the epistemological skyhook.

– – – – – –

And now something completely different …
Reading on Popper I came to learn that he claims that self-predication is logically impossible … and then it hit me that there is an interesting argument here — I call it ‘the argument from self-prediction’:

(1) If naturalism is true, then consciousness is an effect of brain processes.
(2) An effect cannot control its cause.
(3) An effect cannot predict its cause nor itself.
(4) I can predict my actions — I predict that I will post these sentences as post #56 in this thread.
(5) Naturalism is false

If you are to simply be fair and accurate in understanding what ethical theists mean in speaking of God, you need to accept what they mean rather than imposing alien concepts drawn from your particular spin on Popper’s thoughts about science etc.

First, are you saying there is such a thing as a non-ethical theist?

Second, it’s not that I didn’t think that was your position. I didn’t want to put words in your mouth. I wanted you to explicitly make that claim.

Specifically, you are claiming that idea is immune to criticism. So, are you also claiming the idea that it is immune to criticism is also immune to criticism?

Again, how could you find errors in those ideas if you hold them immune to criticism? It seems that the entire enterprise is circular.

Next, the implication of falsificationism as a criterion of meaningfulness also needs to reckon with the now sixty year old collapse of the verification principle, which cannot meet its own criterion and is self referentially incoherent.

Popper’s criticism was leveled agains positivism and verificationism. So, you seem to be confused.

What I’m asking is, if ideas are not subject to criticism then how might we find and discard errors in our ideas. If you say that isn’t necessary, then you’re saying there are no errors in those ideas. But it’s unclear how you can get from not having an idea to having an idea that is without errors.

Perhaps you can outline how it’s possible to actually take that path, step by step, in ethical theism? Why do you think you’ll end up with an idea that is actually without errors, as opposed you merely believing that is the case? Again, it’s unclear how this would work, in practice.

with all due respect, your obsession with “criticism” seems to lead you to miss the point that we should give a true and fair view of states of affairs if we are to be responsible thinkers — e.g. not setting up strawman caricatures of theism. It is astonishing to see you belabour the concept that we theists (broadly speaking) conceive of God in very general — even, generic — terms, as we do, but that is simply to describe a state of affairs. The criticism shoe here is on the other foot, in short.

Where, secondly, I often speak of ethical [mono-]theism by way of emphasis as that aspect is too often overlooked but is crucial.

And, third, no, you plainly strayed into the domain of verificationism above; I simply pointed out, we should not go there.

Fourth, obsessing about criticism has led you to overlook what is plainly pointed out: warrant in light of logical reasoning and linked inferences and judgements, which can in comparatively few cases be utterly certain [think of self evidence]; in some others is morally certain [we would be irresponsible to treat something X warranted to such a degree as though we could presume it false]; in others, empirically highly tested and shown reliable; in others, prudent, and so forth.

A sensible person respects degrees of warrant available for classes of cases and our need to operate in a going-concern world, so will not impose some procrustean bed or other nor give in to blanket hyperskepticism, nor will play the selective hyperskepticism con game of demanding unrealistic degree of warrant for what is unpalatable.

For one instance, had you bothered to read the 101b level discussion I linked above you would see that a key example of self evident, undeniable truth is this — following Josiah Royce and Elton Trueblood: error exists, E. The attempted denial ~ E, in simple terms, boils down to it is an error to assert E, which immediately explodes any possibility that ~E can be true, leaving E as undeniably true. A particularly humbling self evident truth, though, which is itself a warning and motivation to seek as good a warrant for what we believe and act on as we can reasonably get, subject to the limitations of finitude, fallibility and urgency of needing to act today . . . rather than when it is too late . . . in a going-concern world.

In this context, we all walk by faith, the issue is to have reasonable, responsible faith. And so the obsession with oh you presume to have a set of ideas without error is an irrelevancy or even a strawman caricature.

I’m quite pleased with the way the administration is orchestrating this takedown of the cartels. Most people don’t even know what is happening, and I believe that’s all part of the plan – to cause as little disruption and social upheaval as possible, and frame all the different aspects as largely unrelated events, like the arrest of all the Saudi Princes, Mueller’s investigation, the release of the JFK files, etc. There’s so much disinformation and counter-disinformation floating around it’s unbelievable.

So far, so good. It’s definitely wild and crazy times we are living in.

In this context, we all walk by faith, the issue is to have reasonable, responsible faith. And so the obsession with oh you presume to have a set of ideas without error is an irrelevancy or even a strawman caricature.

Except I don’t walk by faith that my conjectures are true because I consider them just that, educated guesses. So, you seem to have it backwards. What would be irresponsible would be to consider them immune to criticism.

What of the possibly that I might be wrong? What would that look like? Well, if we try to take that seriously, for the purpose of criticism, that would imply that each and every idea I develop would start out totally and completely true, and that all observations should conform to that.

Well, that would be problematic as theories I develop for the purpose of solving problems conflict with each other. As such, at least one of them must be false, which refutes this idea. Nor has any one managed to formulate a principle of induction that could be used, in practice, to justifiy theories as true or probable.

My point being, I’m suggesting you are mistaken to assume that some ideas are actually immune from criticism. Again, if you doubt this, please provide examples of basic beliefs that are non-tatualties. For example, that A=A is one such tautology, in that it trivially true.

What would not be trivially true is that something is an A, as opposed to a B or a C, etc.

So, again, I’m suggesting that, what you call basic believes are just ideas that were currently lack good criticism of and that we tentatively accept with the possibility that good criticism might be forthcoming at some point in the future.

From this article on the philosophy of science, which deconstructs the more formal arguments made in this paper….

“Scientific methodology, in turn, does not (nor could it validly) provide criteria for accepting a theory. Conjecture, and the correction of apparent errors and deficiencies, are the only processes at work. And just as the objective of science isn’t to find evidence that justifies theories as true or probable, so the objective of the methodology of science isn’t to find rules which, if followed, are guaranteed, or likely, to identify true theories as true. There can be no such rules. A methodology is itself merely a (philosophical) theory – a convention, as Popper (1959) put it, actual or proposed – that has been conjectured to solve philosophical problems, and is subject to criticism for how well or badly it seems to do that. There cannot be an argument that certifies it as true or probable, any more than there can for scientific theories.”

Here is just about the most contentious piece of philosophy that Popper and Deutsch (or any Popperian/Critical Rationalist) proposes about how science works. It is poorly understood and the opposing world view is still the dominant philosophy of science even though it is false. The false idea – subscribed almost universally by scientists, philosophers and laymen alike is that science somehow provides a way of demonstrating that certain theories are true or close to true or probably true. And moreover that the more one gathers evidence for some theory T, then the more likely T is true. What Deutsch, following Karl Popper is saying here is that there is no such process as that. There is no method in science, no set of rules to follow that can demonstrate theories as either true or probably true. The whole purpose of science is not to “support” theories with evidence. That is a complete misconception. The truth is that science is about correcting errors in our explanations. This is a completely different view of science to what most people have. Now some, admittedly, have read some Popper, or Deutsch – but are afraid to, or perhaps just confused about, fully taking the step to actually appreciate the significance of this. I say “afraid” because there seems to be some concern that if one too strongly endorses even a true theory like this, one might seem dogmatic. I have a person in mind here and that is: Sam Harris. Sam is an otherwise brilliant philosopher on many matters but this is one of his missteps. He at times endorses Popper, other times Kuhn and still other times induction. I won’t go down this rabbit hole here, but I just observe that smart people struggle to really grapple with the centrality of what science is even all about. Now many scientists today do not want to call themselves “Popperians” or “Critical Rationalists” (which is to say they do not want to endorse the idea that science is not about “supporting theories with evidence”) and so they may call themselves “empiricists” or many these days “Bayesians”. For a detailed critique of Bayesianism as a philosophy of science or an epistemology see my other page here (opens in new tab): http://www.bretthall.org/bayes.....ology.html In brief, however: a Bayesian is essentially someone who thinks that repeatedly observing phenomena allows them to build up a probability that a particular theory is true. They can assign a number between 0% and 100% that a given theory is true, or something like this. So if the result of an experiment continues to come out the same way the number climbs closer and closer to 100% – but perhaps it can never quite reach 100% – but that’s okay because science does not need to generate “certainly true” theories – just “probably true”. So perhaps 90% is okay. Or 95%. Or maybe 99.99999% at the 5-sigma confidence level (if you understand statistics). But one need merely consider the question: What probability would a Bayesian assign to Newton’s theory of gravity being true any time prior to finding it false? If a scientist were actually a Bayesian in the year 1900 then it would seem that every experiment ever devised to test Newton’s theory of gravity always corroborated it. Newton’s theory correctly predicted the outcome of every well designed and executed test of it prior to and including the year 1900 (and a little later). A Bayesian could do statistics on any prediction you like and generate some number and the number would be pushing the ceiling of the magic 100% number. Newton’s theory of gravity – according to that philosophy of science – would be very very very close to certainly true.

?And yet, ultimately, it was shown to be false. It was shown false by a crucial experiment on May 29, 1919, the great physicist Arthur Eddington measured the amount by which starlight was bent as it passed by the Sun during a solar eclipse. Newton’s theory predicted one number, Einstein’s another. The amount of bending was in agreement with Einstein’s General Relativity but not in agreement with Newton. Newton’s theory was then refuted. So far from being very very close to true because of all the experiments that it had ever predicted the outcomes of up until then accurately, it was shown false by a crucial test that pitted it against a rival. Now General Relativity is in the same position that Newton’s theory was prior to around 1900. It is not “probably true” or “true” or anything like that. It contains some truth – and more truth than Newton’s (which was closer to true than any random guess would be). But in neither case can we say the theory is true – only that it contains some truth (we don’t know what and it doesn’t matter anyway – the theories can be used to help us control reality around us by making predictions and creating technologies to solve our problems). At any time, to paraphrase Thomas Huxley: the beautiful theory could be slain by some ugly fact. Indeed we have to expect that it will be at some point. General Relativity is at odds with Quantum Theory. They are mutually incompatible for reasons beyond the scope of my present piece here (but in brief: the dispute may come down to a disagreement about whether the most fundamental parts of reality consist of discrete or continuous quantities). Deutsch has said in other places, and I agree: it would be far better had we all decided to call scientific theories “scientific misconceptions” to remind ourselves of how tentative they are and that they will one day be superseded by some better misconception.

I suspect that, even if you only read the above excerpt, you will find aspects of the above that you disagree with. And it will represent a significant, yet non strawman caricature of your position.

Is he in the CFR or other elite group? Or just good ole corrupt entertainment media? (How many such have struck a deal with the Devil by compromising conscience for fame and fortune?)

Illuminism, proper died out after the Austrian secret police crushed it, and Weishaupt returned to orthodox Catholicism.

But secret conspiracies or agendas of grand scope are real, look at Cecil “Rapist of Africa” Rhodes’ first will and compare with the rise of a modded version of his globalised British Empire. Compare the mad follies that triggered WW I and a century of chaos since.

I know there is a story of two Kennedy brothers contending for favours of Marilyn Monroe. Her death was odd, and how they died is passing strange too. Lee Harvey “Patsy” Oswald is one of the strangest figures of modern history. Sounds like an intel agency patsy indeed. As I wonder, could the man in Las Vegas have been? (I am suspicious about someone allegedly making a living from the Vegas houses — sounds like money laundering to get dirty money into the above the table economy, and I am troubled by that first looooong burst, beyond what magazines up to 100 do. 120 – 140. Belt-fed. But then I went to a briefing on a new patrol boat today and used the word “ordnance” watching the reaction which told me all I needed to know. 30 kt 75 ft plus 20 ft zip boat are not meant to run down 50 kt drug boats but to move to cross fire ambush points. Which means armament appropriate to such a role, fill in the blanks . . . GPMGs for sure, possibly good ole Ma Deuce, and I don’t rule out grenade MGs and mebbe even MANPADS if necessary. Kinda obvious. But UK officials get real nervous on mentioning arms.)

There is no one global human cabal at work, but there are many destructive influences leading our civ to ruin.

And WJM’s remarks on hunting down the sexual predators are sounding good to me.

CR, you eat food you trust will not poison you and drink water you trust will not give you serious stomach upsets. Faith is the right word, get over the so outdated revulsion. You use Mathematics that post Godel cannot be utterly certain as a system. And you seem to miss the force of self-evident truths that are utterly certain. KF

Is he in the CFR or other elite group? Or just good ole corrupt entertainment media? (How many such have struck a deal with the Devil by compromising conscience for fame and fortune?)

That was just an attempt at humor, but unfortunately it doesn’t travel well. Kanye West is one of the most famous celebrities in the US, but for a number of reasons it’s unlikely he’s Illuminati.

And WJM’s remarks on hunting down the sexual predators are sounding good to me.

The fact that sexual predators are being exposed does indeed sound good. But I doubt that you will be receiving any satisfactory explication of the connections between this, the JFK files, the Mueller investigation, or what have you.

DS, I stopped following “celebrities” in the early 1970’s, when Elizabeth Taylor was a big star. I could not tell who has been a star recently. The nearest thing is I see it looks like Plantinga just got a Templeton, though that has been severely degraded in my estimation. A few months back I realised several songs that caught my ear in the 80’s when I heard snatches on radios I passed, were by ABBA. As for the human traffickers and sex abusers, hunt ’em down I say. But at the same time we must reckon with sobering warnings from say Sunday School: Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife, Jezebel and Naboth’s vineyard, Haman’s genocide attempt, the travesty of justice in Jerusalem c AD 30 ending with sentencing a known innocent man to death. We need to be very careful not to get caught up in lynch-mob frenzies, slanders and worse. I do suspect that the JFK case exposes that the civil authorities haven’t been trustworthy for decades, including policing authorities — I doubt the official lone gunman narrative, starting with that head snapping back on being hit that final, definitively fatal time (sorry for the ugly image). As for the protection the press accorded him in his scandalous behaviour, that too is an issue. The fate of Ms Munroe — a Hollywood connexion — gives me pause, too; though I think it was suicide in the end. Hollywood is too often about the ugly business of beautiful women; the downmarket porn-perv stuff is outright videotaped prostitution being used to normalise the perverse even as that which is sane is despised. Some serious rethinking is needed. KF

So, you don’t disagree with the excerpt? It doesn’t conflict with your position?

Yet, you wrote:

KF: you eat food you trust will not poison you and drink water you trust will not give you serious stomach upsets. Faith is the right word, get over the so outdated revulsion.

If you don’t disagree with the excerpt, then faith is not the right word.

Faith is that which you accept as true without criticism. In fact, it is often acceptance despite significant criticism. “Here I stand” says the person of faith, which stops not because they tentatively accept a conjecture for which they have run out of good criticisms, but because of an irrational decision to suspend criticism.

KF: You use Mathematics that post Godel cannot be utterly certain as a system.

utterly certain as in positively prove? But that was covered in the excerpt and you didn’t indicated you disagreed with that.

Furthermore, this is addressed in the article…

Deutsch has said in other places, and I agree: it would be far better had we all decided to call scientific theories “scientific misconceptions” to remind ourselves of how tentative they are and that they will one day be superseded by some better misconception. Back now to Deutsch who elaborates on this:

“…expectations…apply only to (some) physical events, not to the truth or falsity of propositions in general – and particularly not to scientific theories: if we have any expectation about those, it should be that even our best and most fundamental theories are false. For instance, since quantum theory and general relativity are inconsistent with each other, we know that at least one of them is false, presumably both, and since they are required to be testable explanations, one or both must be inadequate for some phenomena. Yet since there is currently no single rival theory with a good explanation for all the explicanda of either of them, we rightly expect their predictions to be borne out in any currently proposed experiment. “

In other words although we know one at least (but presumably both) of our best, deepest theories of physics are false, there is no rival out there ready to replace them that can do the job of both just as well. And we must just recall that when we refute a theory we do not discard every single part of the theory. As a rule, very much is preserved. A short example from astronomy will suffice: Ptolemy explained that the universe was a geocentric arrangement where the Earth was at the centre orbited by other smaller spheres in circles. Copernicus theoretically did away with parts of this: replacing the Earth with the Sun but keeping circular orbits. Keplar likewise came and replaced the circles with ellipses and Galileo used observation to show how the Sun-centred model was superior and that there were objects orbiting Jupiter. Newton then provided a universal physical law in mathematical form allowing orbits to be precisely predicted and finally Einstein showed how Newton’s Law was a good approximation to a better theory of the behaviour of spacetime which explained why the paths around the Sun were how they were. Each new improvement preserved much of the past (and crucially the idea that orbits were actually occurring, even if what was orbiting what, and why, changed as things improved). So refutation of a previously good theory – whether experimental or not – does not do away wholesale with everything that was valuable in the theory – it preserves much although ultimately demonstrating how the theory is fatally flawed and therefore ultimately false (with the proviso as Deutsch mentions below that theories are never entirely “logically contradicted” by some experimental observation. But this is a technical point we can return to later. Deutsch:

“A test of a theory is an experiment whose result could make the theory problematic. A crucial test – the centrepiece of scientific experimentation – can, on this view, take place only when there are at least two good explanations of the same explicandum (good, that is, apart from the fact of each other’s existence). Ideally it is an experiment such that every possible result will make all but one of those theories problematic, in which case the others will have been (tentatively) refuted. “

Now this is an amazingly important and clear articulation of what experiments are. Experiments test theories. But what can the results do? Well interestingly if the result of an experiment conflicts with a theory it does not necessarily rule out the theory. So take for example the more or less frequent media hype that can surround certain high-energy physics observations that are reported as “Einstein proved false!”. Perhaps one of the more famous examples (detailed here) was about an experiment at the Large Hadron Collider where neutrinos apparently exceeded the speed of light in violation of special relativity (it turned out there was a cable incorrectly connected or some such). Now the results were actually false. But even if the results were true and neutrinos exceeded the speed of light this would not “prove” Einstein false or possibly cause us to reject relativity theory. What it would do is make relativity theory “problematic”. Relativity theory would still be the best theory about how fast things can move and what happens to things as they move relative to one another. So a test of a theory: an experiment – even if it disagrees with the best theory going – is not a reason to reject that theory. After all, if you reject that theory, then what theory should you use? The second best theory? There is almost never a second best theory. But even if there were: that second best theory is “second best” for some good set of reasons. And if those reasons include things like “it cannot explain phenomena a, b, c, d, e and f while the first best theory can” then there still won’t be a reason to turn to that theory in place of the first best.

Again, this is not faith. The idea that knowledge is true, justified belief requires faith. That is where we disagree.

KF: And you seem to miss the force of self-evident truths that are utterly certain.

The force of utterly trivial certainty? Even if that was the case, it would be trivially true.

KF, there is a large part of the public that is very aware of what is going on. Slowly but surely others are being “red-pilled” by the slow, methodical release of information that shows a long, long history of deep state abuse and corruption. The JFK files reflect this corruption and details how Americans have been lied to. Drip, drip, drip.

All we are seeing right is the tip of the iceberg. Way more to come, but through a process that keeps the ship running and red-pills as many people as possible along the way.

My concern is with the more farcical conspiracy theories that are, contrary to all common sense, taken seriously here in the US (e.g., the 9/11 “truth” movement, birtherism, PizzaGate). I honestly don’t know how some of these theories gain a following. Is our capacity for critical thinking dwindling?

DS, I hear your concerns. I am pretty well satisfied that the 9/11 attacks were a high-water mark of islamist terrorism masterminded by a demolition expert. On “birtherism,” there are in fact a lot of unexplained issues and hidden things, but I suggest one question: did you ever look at the document layers in the released Birth certificate? I did, and it is troubling in a wider context. Though, my concerns on that past US President centre more on his obvious training as a marxian agitator in the cultural marxist school, his deliberate destabilisation of marriage and family, law and civil society and more. As for Pizza gate, I have already pointed out that speakeasies MUST exist, where are they? Why are they by and large so invisible, especially given what is now coming out on suppression for decades. KF

I am pretty well satisfied that the 9/11 attacks were a high-water mark of islamist terrorism masterminded by a demolition expert.

Excellent. That’s also my conclusion.

On “birtherism,” there are in fact a lot of unexplained issues and hidden things, but I suggest one question: did you ever look at the document layers in the released Birth certificate? I did, and it is troubling in a wider context.

I vaguely recall issues related to this. What specific details about these document layers do you think indicate the certificate was faked?

DS, I hear your concerns. I am pretty well satisfied that the 9/11 attacks were a high-water mark of islamist terrorism masterminded by a demolition expert.

Islamist terrorism only exists to the extent that cartels fund them and provide them with weaponry. As with any investigation, follow the money. There’s a reason Trump visited Saudi Arabia first, shortly followed by the arrest of 11 princes and 300 government officials and businessmen over there. There’s also a reason that the capacity for 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia was vetoed by Obama.

On “birtherism,” there are in fact a lot of unexplained issues and hidden things, but I suggest one question: did you ever look at the document layers in the released Birth certificate? I did, and it is troubling in a wider context.

The birth certificate the White House provided was a blatant fake. Anyone with any graphic document program expertise could easily see it. Two separate forensic groups – international experts – verified it was a fake. That doesn’t prove he wasn’t born in the USA, but it does raise serious questions.

Though, my concerns on that past US President centre more on his obvious training as a marxian agitator in the cultural marxist school, his deliberate destabilisation of marriage and family, law and civil society and more.

All of which was hidden and abetted by a complicit media and the establishment of both political parties.

As for Pizza gate, I have already pointed out that speakeasies MUST exist, where are they? Why are they by and large so invisible, especially given what is now coming out on suppression for decades. KF

What the term “Pizzagate” represents has already been historically verified and is in the process every day of being verified even further as to its worldwide scope and reach. Major pedo busts in several foreign countries (Belgium, Norway, etc.), a huge upsurge in pedo and trafficking ring busts in the USA (largely ignored by national mainstream media), facts we already know about Hastert, Epstein, Weiner, what Feldman and others are now trying to reveal. The Westminster child abuse coverup, at least two capitol hill cover-ups, the banned Discovery channel documentary, Franklin Credit Union, the documented deaths of those investigating these rings, etc.

But, their time has arrived. Not soon – now. It’s already happening. There are some things even the mainstream media cannot ignore – and with the white hats in charge of the NSA data, it’s relatively easy to turn most. Thre have already been a few recent, questionable deaths of high-ranking individuals, including another close member of the Clinton inner circle down in Washington.

DS, I have no intent to go down rabbit-trails. A clean copy of a document that is presumably a print off from some government archive will not have IIRC 7 – 9 layers in it. The speakeasy issue is much worse, as to hide that sort of thing requires a lot of dirty power penetrating key institutions and with the ruthlessness to enforce omerta. Chilling. But it suggests some ugly but plausible explanations of a lot that is going on. KF

The birth certificate the White House provided was a blatant fake. Anyone with any graphic document program expertise could easily see it. Two separate forensic groups – international experts – verified it was a fake.

“blatantly fake” is not an argument. Having helped found a new-media design company in the late 90s, I have graphic document program “expertise”, yet I’m unaware of anyway of “seeing” that it was fake. Furthermore, who are these “international experts” you failed to identity?

WJM, do keep us up to date. For Islamist terror, I suggest, look at the ME oil money. Why did the media cover over marxist agitator background? (NB: Just the pic at the chalkboard is telling.) The Pizza / hot dog symbolism is obvious and there are reports confirming its use as a speakeasy code. I used to think snuff movies were fantasy but a clear case has surfaced in the Philippines. I await the bursting of the dam, a lot will be swept away. KF

DS, I have no intent to go down rabbit-trails. A clean copy of a document that is presumably a print off from some government archive will not have IIRC 7 – 9 layers in it.

Would you mind explaining why, with a source for that?

The speakeasy issue is much worse, as to hide that sort of thing requires a lot of dirty power penetrating key institutions and with the ruthlessness to enforce omerta. Chilling. But it suggests some ugly but plausible explanations of a lot that is going on.

Do you believe the hacked emails implicate John Podesta as a child sex trafficker?

I’m guessing from your responses so far that you are not convinced that this is true (which is consistent with my position—I don’t know Podesta is innocent, but the PizzaGate “theory” is utterly unconvincing).

DS, I don’t need a source. Go download Libre Office and use the drawing package to open a valid copy of the cert as released. I did that years back shortly after its release and the layers were there. Any number of packages should be able to do that. A gif or jpg scan of a document should have one layer and should go to PDF as a one layer image; the document was multi-layer, 7 – 9 IIRC. I suspect there will be online discussions. As for Podesta and emails and certain shops in DC, that is way off topic, my concern is there HAVE to be speakeasies, and such always use codes to access the underground side. WHERE ARE THEY, WHY IS THERE NOT A DECADES LONG LIST OF BUSTS WITH BIG NAMES GAOLED AND MORE? My suspicion is at the rate things are going 1/2 of Congress, 1/4 of wider DC and 2/3 of Hollywood and NY may well be implicated before this thing burns out. Though, I am concerned that some innocents are going to be badly burned in the fires esp if a mob spirit rises up. I confess that the suicide of an MP in the UK is troubling. KF

DS, I don’t need a source. Go download Libre Office and use the drawing package to open a valid copy of the cert as released. I did that years back shortly after its release and the layers were there. Any number of packages should be able to do that. A gif or jpg scan of a document should have one layer and should go to PDF as a one layer image; the document was multi-layer, 7 – 9 IIRC. I suspect there will be online discussions.

Did you read the National Review article I linked to? It says:

UPDATE: I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.

He said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery. “I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said.

Tremblay explained that the scanner optical character recognition (OCR) software attempts to translate characters or words in a photograph into text. He said the layers cited by the doubters shows that software at work – and nothing more.

“When you open it in Illustrator it looks like layers, but it doesn’t look like someone built it from scratch. If someone made a fake it wouldn’t look like this,” he said.“Some scanning software is trying to separate the background and the text and splitting element into layers and parts of layers.”

Tremblay also said that during the scanning process, instances where the software was unable to separate text fully from background led to the creation of a separate layer within the document. This could be places where a signature runs over the line of background, or typed characters touch the internal border of the document.

“I know that you can scan a document from a scanner most of the time it will appear as one piece, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no software that’s doing this kind of stuff,” he said, adding that it’s really quite common.

“I’d be more afraid it’d be fake if it was one in piece. It would be harder to check if it’s a good one if it’s a fake,” Tremblay said.

Edit: Well, the American Thinker article does address the issue. I’ll take a look later.

Since we’re exchanging links back and forth, here’s a response to the American Thinker article.

DS, that is getting into being a tangent off a tangent. I have given two links to more detailed apparent expert reports. In a sense, this is a sidetrack, the openly accessible info is to my mind far more troubling starting with the infamous chalkboard diagram. I also repeat, where are the speakeasies? KF

If there’s a drugs trade passing through a country that’s small, you have got to have some serious corruption somewhere, so where is it?

That by and large we don’t have a long list of well known busts cutting across the power centres (the Roman Catholic Church penetration by largely homosexual pedos is the major recent exception) is a case of the guard dog that didn’t bark.

Where are those speakeasies, what is their distribution, how many have been busted, who and whom have been nailed and are gone to gaol.

There are far too few cases and it is taking far too long for even the tip of the iceberg to show. The Saville case in the UK should give us serious pause as should Epstein and the Franklyn case.

WJM is on to something, something that I suspect runs wide and deep across the world.

KF

PS: The diagram Mr Obama put on a board illustrating power connexions in an Alinskyite frame.

WJM is on to something, something that I suspect runs wide and deep across the world.

“Something” is not very specific. WJM explicitly names Podesta and Comet Ping Pong as being part of a child sex trafficking operation, whereas you prudently (IMO) have declined to jump on board as of yet.

DS, it is very evident that I am speaking of corruption in high places and low, particularly manifest through sex abuse and networks including equivalents of prohibition era speakeasies. I keep asking where is the paper trail on consistent police busts and monsters sent to do hard time? That by and large absence is telling when the stench of the corruption is so widespread. BTW here, after decades two professionals are up for high court cases that might actually go somewhere. KF

DS, BTW, you will see form the reports that there are many document characteristics that differ. In particular, producing a large number of layers by digitally scissoring up a doc is different from the layer patterns and artifacts we can see discussed in the linked. Just a note, not an invite to yet another rabbit trail. KF

PS: Where are the speakeasies, and what is the evidence that warranted dismissal of the claimed or suggested or questioned case, and even if that is mistaken, ponder: what evidence is there on the codes on pizza and hot dogs etc? There is a stench of corruption, where are the bodies? There have to be a lot of them out there. And I am not so naive as to believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the primary and only place where there was pedophile penetration. Especially when heavily funded steps were taken with scouting to open it up to such penetration at legal gunpoint at almost the same time. Then there is the fiasco of UN backed “comprehensive sexuality education,” with the hundred plus “genders: I have seen listed and with an obvious agenda of desensitisation, grooming and provision of opportunities for contact. Contrast again the current blow up on cases of accused sexual abuse, some well warranted, some maybe too much of panic, others likely being smear jobs or little more than witch hunts. This is why vigilantism is always dangerous. When the pitchforks, torches and nooses are out in force, justice is likely to be given short shrift indeed. And power elites can be just as guilty as the proverbial mob of yahoos. Show trials did not begin or end with Stalin.

BTW, you will see form the reports that there are many document characteristics that differ. In particular, producing a large number of layers by digitally scissoring up a doc is different from the layer patterns and artifacts we can see discussed in the linked.

I believe that’s what the Frank Arduini piece I linked to in #80 addresses (I have yet to read it completely, however). He says such alterations occur when the pdf is compressed.

PS: Where are the speakeasies, and what is the evidence that warranted dismissal of the claimed or suggested or questioned case, and even if that is mistaken, ponder: what evidence is there on the codes on pizza and hot dogs etc?

Try to imagine reading it before someone handed you the Secret Decoder Ring™.

Does it look like the author is talking about trafficking in children, or perhaps just a holiday gift such as this?

Of course there are many, many more emails that you can download from wikileaks.

Admittedly I have only read a few of these that have appeared on various fora, but as of now, I have inferred that the best explanation is simply that these people are talking about food and other everyday things, and not about trafficking children.

If you want to do your own sleuthing, you can search through Mr Podesta’s hacked emails here

There is a search feature that lets you filter the emails; the above link should give you messages with the word “pizza”.

DS, I suggest you read the first two reports I linked which draw out how automatic layering differs from layering that is editorial: The former will create a characteristic pattern of many small layers, the latter will have layers that we can reasonably assign to purpose. Notice how the security paper background lives in one layer, which was removed in the ABC version and replaced by a light blue background. Then there are artifacts in layers that on removal reveal underlying details — what a scan from a document cannot do as the overlay is what would be scanned. And, much more. When it comes to the issue of codes, I am not attaching to any particular conversation, I know that codes are put into songs, discussions and much more, even handshakes. Where, just as a cross reference, the artful use of double meanings is actually a major component of Calypso and Soca music. The latter word is in fact quite loaded, itself. A naive person could sing such a song in all simplicity but not realise how loaded the words in fact are. I gather this also held for some music etc in the speakeasy era. The current issue is, I repeat: the stench of corruption is all over the place, where are the bodies, where are the speakeasies, where are the busts? Methinks we are back to having effective untouchables — I recall here how Krupp 2 was caught out and the Prussian police were complicit in cover ups, but too much leaked and he obviously committed suicide. KF

Yes, I’ll take a look at the documents. I’m a little busy now, but should have some free time in the next few days.

When it comes to the issue of codes, I am not attaching to any particular conversation, I know that codes are put into songs, discussions and much more, even handshakes. Where, just as a cross reference, the artful use of double meanings is actually a major component of Calypso and Soca music. The latter word is in fact quite loaded, itself. A naive person could sing such a song in all simplicity but not realise how loaded the words in fact are. I gather this also held for some music etc in the speakeasy era. The current issue is, I repeat: the stench of corruption is all over the place, where are the bodies, where are the speakeasies, where are the busts?

Ok, but at some point one must set aside vague talk about “stenches” and become specific: “Is this particular location a ‘speakeasy’ or not?”

This pizzeria allegedly is, and there is incriminating evidence in these emails according to some.

However, I don’t think those allegations are true, so IMO, it’s likely going to be more productive to search for “speakeasies” elsewhere. And perhaps stop spreading this PizzaGate meme.

I’m not stopping you from investigating anything, including the identities of these “untouchables”. More power to you!

I still don’t see much disagreement between us on the allegations regarding the Podesta emails and the pizzeria. I also haven’t disputed anything you have said about these “untouchables”, so I’m not sure there is anything to argue about on this front. Perhaps there is more to discuss regarding the birth certificate issue.

DS, IIRC there are far more serious examples from the trove, you picked a case that is on the fringe of the focal cases. But that is not my main concern. My suspicion is that investigations on any number of things have been blocked, suppressed or diverted. But the point is, we will wait and see as something seems to be brewing. KF

WJM, sobering. This is actually an application of the design inference explanatory filter. Beyond a reasonable threshold of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, the only reasonable explanation is intelligently directed configuration. In this context the video indicates precise spatial alignments in layers in the document that match another document too consistently and closely in position and/or angles to be credibly blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. Sobering, and I just pointed to the Gulf of Tonkin incidents of 1944. KF

DS, I am now much more suspicious of this document similar to my suspicions regarding the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the behaviour of McNamara et al at that time. This is as opposed to holding a particular view on the actual birth facts for Mr Obama. I am quite aware the half bro has said things and I believe produced a document, but that is not directly relevant. For, I am even more aware that it is well within the Alinsky methods to set up a tempting distraction and keep it burning especially if one can use it to make the targetted parties seem to be foolish or worse to those you wish to harden against them. Remember, I cut my eyeteeth on agit prop operators and I know Mr Obama was trained to be just such — as his job title Community Organiser, implies. {Why wasn’t that properly highlighted, headlined and seriously discussed at the sort of sustained length that would gain general attention?) What the pattern I see and suspect leads me to believe is that we have not been dealing with straightforward people of truth who seek peace with neighbour, but instead high level agit prop operators. Five moves ahead multidimensional chess. The ever deepening polarisation I see is thus yet another indicator of the peril of our time. KF

DS, It smells of agit-prop distractor, judging by my experience — if simple fraud was intended, it would not have been amateur night overlooking to flatten layers. Second, the USNI article linked indicates US-SVN actions set up the first Tonkin attack (which could likely have been understood by the NVN military to be defense against continued attacks) and that the second was likely panic reaction to sensor ghosts, with attempts to correct initial record. It seems highly likely high level US officials manipulated the reports to indicate a clear attack, triggering the Resolution that led to full force US engagement. KF

DS, you further need to address that the underlying strategic assumption is media dominance so that objectors to the document etc could be marginalised, stereotyped, dismissively labelled and scapegoated for targetting. This directly reflects Weinstein’s suppression of exposes by the aggrieved and media targetting of complainants and journalists who would not go along with the agenda. This is part of the widespread reek of corruption and it provides an explanation for why — with the significant exception of the hated Roman Catholic Church — we have not been seeing a regular, intense breaking of the nests of perverts, perps, speakeasies etc. connected to halls of power. Of course, that serves to create the perception that it is those hypocritical Christians who are the problem, when in fact the stench is coming from everywhere. In short there is a widespread problem that has distorted government, law, law enforcement, transparency, accountability and much more. This brings me right back to the number one case that seems to drive all others: the ongoing holocaust of living posterity in the womb, at 1 million more victims per week, sustained under false colour of law, rights etc, amounting to over 800+ million victims in 40+ years. Blood guilt taint directly connected to widespread breakdown of sexual morality, compounded by faulty population bomb analysis that failed to see effects of demographic collapse compounded by mass blood guilt. We are the worst generation since antediluvian days, we actually are worse than Hitler, Stalin, Mao et al. Innocent blood, rivers of it, cries up from the ground against us, cries out for justice. And it will be answered with a terrible judgement of a wicked civilisation. For, the level of corruption we see leads to warped judgement, marches of folly and go-over-the-cliff ruin. With nukes in play. How utterly demonically warped, shameless, benumbed in conscience, warped in mind and so how utterly inexcusably foolish we have become. Is there at least a remnant that will stand? KF

I don’t believe such a strategy was involved in this case. To be clear, I don’t think the birth certificate was forged at all.

The idea that an obvious fake was released to discredit skeptics is massively implausible, IMO.

***

Incidentally, have you applied a similar analysis to former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, who organized this investigation of a sitting president? The guy who was recently pardoned by Trump? I wonder if he has any political motivations…

DS, Arpaio may or may not have political motives. He and others do have some significant evidence, and that evidence points to something seriously fishy about the document. Try the precise alignment of five text boxes in layers across two documents as a start. As a simple fraud would not have the sort of blunders we see, that leaves the distractor and tainting game — moths to a flame effect — on the table; where ability to do this sort of trick is enabled by media dominance so the narrative will fall on the polarised party lines. As can already be seen in how his marxian agit-prop operative background was not seriously and soberly discussed in the media. I don’t think this operation is at the level of the folks who swallowed the Texas Air National Guard letter c 1970 typed with MS Word, as came out back in 2004 was it and cost Dan Rather his job. KF

DS, the cluster of five blocks in common is telling. Second, the pattern of layering is not characteristic of a simple scanned PDF, as in there is a bottom layer and there are text manipulation artifacts. Note too the contrast with ABC’s blue background version as discussed in what I linked. The article linked at 80 is little more than a breezy appeal to authority in dismissal. I await your response to the specifics in the articles I linked and in the vid WJM linked. Meanwhile, the presence of evidence of manipulation that would be removed by a simple forger who knows what he is doing, leads me to infer a moths to flame distract and discredit agit prop game backed by media dominance able to enforce a narrative. That fits with a much wider pattern of manipulation of the public by elite factions, e.g. on Mr Obama’s “Community Organizer” background, the abortion holocaust under false colour of law and rights, the injection of perversities into law, proper understanding of what fascism is, suppression of the record of the democides of communism and much more. And so, back to where are the speakeasies. KF

PS: Conspiracies are common place, including at top levels. The broad-brush dismissive use of the term “conspiracy theories” without reference to issues of sound evidence is in my view manipulative. Conventional wisdoms and dominant narratives too often embed crucial errors or even manipulation. The question is always warrant.

PPS: You have a second article linked at 80. It dismisses and in my view fails to fairly evaluate a fairly wide range of evidence. E.g. why weren’t the layers simply flattened as part of cleaning up a document as this seems to be a routine step? One consequence of the narrow focus on dismissing an individual comes out in the video linked by WJM, where two separate sets of experts in document analysis do find specific reasons to infer manipulation. Recall, there is a second document, with a blue background. Likewise, there is a suggested source and esp. a group of five apparent digital transfers.

PPPS: I took enough of this up despite knowing the moth to flame distractor game, precisely because someone needs to point out that that game can be going on also. It is highly unlikely that c 2011 someone in a senior position would put up a fraud with the kind of readily detected flaws that led to exposure in 2004. If something is present that would draw moths to a flame that serves polarisation and marginalisation, the best explanation for such is that it was there for that exact purpose. For, “conspiracy theorist” and “tinfoil hat” etc are near synonyms. It is time for us to realise conspiracies and manipulation backed by power and money are common, that they serve agendas, that they may be very sophisticated and successful, and that cumulatively they ruin sound community leading to marches of folly. In the context of the above, the issue is, there is reason to conclude that sexual perversities and abuses are common across our world including in circles of power. But — with notable exceptions — we are not seeing the pattern of busts and cases that we should, though a rash is now emerging. At the same time, false accusation that destroys is also real (and is often a tactic used by powerful conspirators), and we need to therefore hold things in balance and seek adequate warrant for where we come out. In my view, one such conclusion is that the absence of busts of speakeasies etc is a sign that the power games are suppressing things. Indeed, Weinstein’s case points to how this has clearly happened for many years.

Do you agree that the higher resolution scan (along with the statements of Hawaii state officials and journalists) indicate there is a paper document on file that is consistent with the lower resolution pdf which Zebest analyzed?

DS, I really wonder how this thread is way off on this tangent. I simply say that you need to account for the second copy on a blue background, for artifacts such as the cluster of five matching blocks to the Ah’Nee [sp?] certificate and more. That is enough to in context of 2011 vs 2004 warrant all I need: reason to be concerned that this is a moths to a flame distractor. Meanwhile, while we are busy rushing up to meet an advancing German R wing on the Belgian plains, seven Panzer divisions are cutting through in the rear at Sedan and are heading for the channel, with Rommel’s Ghost Division in the lead. So, I again ask: where are the speakeasies and the busts? Why do we not understand what fascism really is, or what an Alinsky school “community organiser” is, given the agit-prop issue? Why do we so often see dubious narratives imposed in the teeth of credible evidence to the contrary, from JFK’s head snapping back, to the second Tonkin Gulf attack, to serious questions on what really went down in Las Vegas recently, to much more. Why are we not recognising that the single worst holocaust in history proceeds apace with another million victims globally every week? Why are we content to allow law, government, policing, media, education and much more to be entangled in enabling behaviour for a pattern of agendas and pushes that are bringing our civilisation over the cliff? KF

PS: I am not demanding agreement, only I suggest there is reason for serious-minded people to take a different view. So that, it is questionable to see the rush to distraction, distortion, dismissal and denigration. I fear, the truth about our civilisation is far uglier than we imagine.

I will try to get to the rest of the Zebest article and the “five blocks” tomorrow.

I think that if this higher resolution version of the image exists, that is significant in that it suggests that the allegedly fraudulent pdf is not the “original”. And in fact, the paper version (which people have seen firsthand and reported on) was used to create the high-res scan and low-res pdf.

Of course this is all consistent with your theory that the pdf was released as a red herring distractor.

DS, I think, more than a simple red herring (even as a strawman caricature is a special form of RH distractor), moth to a deadly flame. Especially as “tin foil hat conspiracy theorist” and the like lurk as ways to marginalise and polarise the community. I think it is no accident that polarisation has grown ever more intense in recent years, even as our civilisation has become ever more confused, even suicidal. For this last, look at the demographics numbers. Voting patterns turning on manipulated narratives amplified by irresponsible but hitherto dominant media add fuel to the fire. And meanwhile, we can see clear evidence of cover-ups, media shielding, serial sexual predatory behaviour among the powerful, the deliberate distortion and undermining of marriage and family as well as even personal identity (100+ “genders” most of which make no coherent sense and NOT counting male and female), with a holocaust in progress. We are outdoing Sodom. KF

PS: I thought of a test. What proportion of people understand the difference between liberty under just law and licence? The consequences of increasingly imagining the latter is the real freedom? (How many have been seriously taught Plato’s Parable of the mutinous ship of state? How many pulpits have carefully expounded Ac 27 and drawn out its relevance to community or corporate governance? And more? Does this not indict our education systems?)

Note that DS doesn’t have an hour to view the result of years of investigation and analysis by leaders in their field, all of whom were Obama supporters, and provide a very accessible point-by-point slideshow that clearly demonstrates the fraudulent nature of the document. Instead, he makes implications about Arpaio’s motivations and sweeps it all aside as “not plausible”.

I suspect the same is true of DS’ dismissal of pizzagate due to his obvious ignorance of actual nature of the subject. He accepts whatever his usual sources tell him and then his personal bias engine weighs the information and concludes that it is way too far out of the comfort zone to even consider, so it is dismissed with prejudice.

However, to be fair, it’s not just DS – that’s most of the population. Also, the media makes it virtually impossible to even discuss certain topics in public without it ruining your life. Narratives that are demonstrable fabrications are guarded with vicious tenacity by those in power.

WJM, sobering point. And while I have no intent to go on to debates on the PZ-gate issue, is there some place where there is a sober, sound summary of evidence that supports what you seem to suggest, there is something there that we should be concerned about? I know there is an issue independent of such, as we SHOULD have a long list of speakeasies busted and notable people caught too, not just the obvious use of the issue to attack the Roman Catholic Church as though it were the main locus of trouble. I am of course even more concerned about the state of major media, given ever so many issues and the ways a narrative is imposed and defended. To pick just one, the way the decalogue is treated, you would never imagine that the start point for English common law, Alfred’s Book of Dooms, quite literally starts law with the decalogue and then with the wider torah and elements of the NT including the Golden Rule and the Acts 15 AD 49 Church Council in Jerusalem, speaking of nations that have taken baptism as in effect coming into that framework. This is a crucial bit of history, and it sets up what comes after. KF

The Doom Book, Code of Alfred or Legal Code of Ælfred the Great was the code of laws (“dooms” being laws or judgments) compiled by Alfred the Great (c. 893 AD). Alfred codified three prior Saxon codes – those of Æthelberht of Kent (c. 602 AD), Ine of Wessex (c. 694 AD) and Offa of Mercia (c. 786 AD) – to which he prefixed the Ten Commandments of Moses and incorporated rules of life from the Mosaic Code and the Christian code of ethics.

The title “Doom book” (originally dom-boc or dom-boke) comes from d?m (pronounced “dome”) which is the Anglo-Saxon word meaning judgment or law — as in Alfred’s admonishment to “Doom very evenly! Do not doom one doom to the rich; another to the poor! Nor doom one doom to your friend; another to your foe!”[1] This reflects Mosaic Law, which says “You shall do no injustice in judgment! You shall not be partial to the poor; nor defer to the great! But you are to judge your neighbour fairly!” (Leviticus 19:15).

The Christian theologian F. N. Lee [ –> cf here: http://www.dr-fnlee.org/king-a.....-law/never mind Wikipedia’s dismissive note] ]extensively documented Alfred the Great’s work of collecting the law codes from the three Christian Saxon kingdoms and compiling them into his Doom Book.[2] Lee details how Alfred incorporated the principles of the Mosaic law into his Code, and how this Code of Alfred became the foundation for the Common Law. In the book’s extensive prologue, Alfred summarises the Mosaic and Christian codes. Dr Michael Treschow, UBC Faculty of Creative and Critical Studies, reviewed how Alfred laid the foundation for the Spirit of Mercy in his code,[3] stating that the last section of the Prologue not only describes “a tradition of Christian law from which the law code draws but also it grounds secular law upon Scripture, especially upon the principle of mercy”.

The law code contains some laws that may seem bizarre by modern standards, such as: “If a man unintentionally kills another man by letting a tree fall on him, the tree shall be given to the kinsmen of the slain.”

The bottom-line is, we see a day in which narratives are imposed and ruthlessly enforced with scant regard to the truth and the right. That is of course the underlying concern in the OP.

KF

PS: The little clip from Lev 19:15 omits a very telling context:

Lev 19:15 ‘You shall not do injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor show a preference for the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. 16 You shall not go around as a gossip among your people, and you are not to act against the life of your neighbor [with slander or false testimony]; I am the Lord.

17 ‘You shall not hate your brother in your heart; you may most certainly rebuke your neighbor, but shall not incur sin because of him. 18 You shall not take revenge nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor (acquaintance, associate, companion) as yourself; I am the Lord. [AMP]

Es58, The Galapagos finches from the 80’s have shown such inter-species hybridisation that the whole narrative has been in doubt. And a new species in a few generations suggests that something is wrong with the definition or how it is applied. KF

PS: Here we go, inadvertent money shot in the linked:

There are at least 15 species of Darwin’s finches, so named because their diversity helped famed naturalist Charles Darwin figure out his theory of evolution by natural selection – that is, mutations can help species become better adapted to their environment, and be passed down to subsequent generations.

It’s two of these species that came together in what is called species hybridisation to create an entirely new one.

If species are hybridising to form new ones, what’s the difference from the variety of dog breeds?

DS, from the remarks it seems nine birth certificates were sourced and especially used in analysis by the Italian group, this one comes from 1995. I believe a call went out for comparatives. All of this fits with the moth to flame game. KF

Be sure and also check out The Truth Has No Bias thread and the Op Storm Update thread in that main meme link for context about the history of the meme and broader information concerning events now playing out around the world.

It seems that the certificate was submitted by Ms Ah’Nee herself, a WND reader, to one Jerome Corsi, whose name I’m sure you recognize.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that, to be sure, but it would have been nice if a person with his background was not in the chain of custody.

In watching and re-watching parts of the video and searching, I’ve found there is a vast amount of discussion about this issue on the internet (including some surprising doubt of this potential forgery on r/The_Donald). I will continue reading through it when time permits.

LIEGE, Belgium — “We were only eight years old, and we had lots of dreams. We thought life would be beautiful. You grown-ups, prepare us a better world.”

–Memorial placard written by the parents of Melissa Russo and Julie Lejeune . . . .

The sexual abuse and killing of two third-graders would break the heart of almost anyone, but the case of Melissa Russo and Julie Lejeune has done much more. Their horror has turned an entire country inside out, at once uniting Belgium’s disparate cultures in grief and shattering their faith in the decency of their shared society.

“We were saying from the very beginning that Melissa and Julie were probably in Belgium,” said Russo, 36, who helped distribute 10,000 posters of the missing girls in this tiny country and abroad. “But everyone said such a thing was not possible here. We stood alone.”

Melissa and Julie not only died the most horrible of deaths on Belgian soil but did so after their parents’ desperate pleas for help were dismissed by the authorities and nearly everyone else. In the aftermath, practically no one in this country of 10 million, unaccustomed to such national trauma, is able to look Gino Russo straight in his tearful eyes.

“There is a lot of rage right now over what happened to these two girls, but it comes partly from a deep sense of guilt,” said Michele Hirsch, a Brussels attorney who has handled pedophile cases. “We all feel culpable. Maybe if more of us believed like the parents did, the girls would still be alive.”

Belgium is a country where scandals typically erupt from politics and its linguistic divide–the contentious line that separates Dutch-speaking Flemish provinces from the French-speaking Walloons–not from society’s failure to protect its most vulnerable members. Violent crime is relatively low, and pedophilia is regarded as the scourge of sandy beaches in Southeast Asia, not the wooded flatlands of Western Europe.

But the case of Melissa and Julie has suddenly changed all that. An angry and traumatized public has forgotten its language war and vented its collective fury on the system, blaming the police, the courts and the political establishment for having failed the two girls–and the rest of Belgium with them.

“I never imagined that something so horrible could happen on our own doorstep,” said Marie-Joelle Bouzet, whose daughter, Elisabeth Brichet, has been missing since 1989, when the 12-year-old went to visit a neighborhood friend. “We have to keep up the public pressure long enough to force the politicians to change it all.”

The indignation has grown even greater in recent days as speculation mounts that politics was involved from the beginning in the still-unfolding pedophilia scandal, which already has led to 10 arrests.

Russo, Bouzet and others allege that well-connected suspects have been afforded “political protection” by authorities, and a highly regarded children’s activist, Marie-France Botte, claims that the Justice Ministry is sitting on a politically sensitive list of customers of pedophile videotapes produced by Melissa and Julie’s accused abductors.

PPS: Let me take a further slice from the page as I read on down it. After the Weinstein revelations, we cannot simply dismiss the point made below:

[–]LawOfAttraction33[S] 186 points 4 years ago

I understand that my discussion on the Dutroux affair does not validate any of the claims in the title of this post. It is only one small piece of the puzzle. It shows how, from the bottom level of police work to the top level of prosecution politics, people complicit with pedophiles can be placed into key positions to ensure that investigations never bear fruit. Now I will briefly highlight pedophile rings that operated parallel to Dutrouxs during the same time period, again in which no high level officials were brought to justice, although they undeniable participated, to illustrate how widespread the child porn and child abuse epidemic is. I will then move on to more important cases. In Latvia, three top officials, including the Prime Minister, were named in connection with a pedophile ring in which 2000 children in the country were abused 24, LA TIMES. An online ring known as Wonderland was busted and yielded 750,000 images of children 25 BBC. From the article [25]: “Wonderland originated in the United States but also operated in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Britain.” None of the men charged in relation to the ring served more than 30 months in jail, and only two were put on the sex offenders registry (in the year 2000!!!) 26, GUARDIAN UK. A child porn ring in Mexico was busted and said to have thousands of clients in the United States 27, BBC. Child porn videos reportedly made a Russian ring 410 million dollars being sold in Germany, Italy, and the United States 28, GUARDIAN UK. A Dutch ring was discovered in which images and videos of abuse of infants were circulated 29, NY TIMES. A magistrate leading an investigation into an Italian pedophile ring denounced what he called a “paedophile lobby” of powerful politicians which he said openly obstructed his investigation 30, INDEPENDANT UK. French police arrested 250 people associated with child pornography within a year of the Dutroux affair [31, NY TIMES](http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03.....-ring.html

Former CIA director William Colby, giving a warning to his friend senator John Decamp (not an insider;was a Vietnam war hero who got elected with strong local roots ), in regards to his campaign to get to the bottom of the Franklin Savings&Loan scandal:

”What you have to understand, John, is that sometimes there are forces and events too big, too powerful, with so much at stake for other people or institutions, that you cannot do any­thing about them, no matter how evil or wrong they are and no matter how dedicated or sincere you are or how much evidence you have. That is simply one of the hard facts of life you have to face. You have done your part. You have tried to expose the evil and wrongdoing. It has hurt you terribly. But it has not killed you up to this point. I am telling you, get out of this before it does.”

Okay, let us ask ourselves just what has been going on, across the board.

Remember, the per aspect form design inference explanatory filter gives us a powerful tool for spotting when it does not make sense to attribute to blind chance and/or mechanical necessity filtered through the tendency to see faces or the like in toast or wood grain or clouds or whatever.